In
Wisconsin there are three separate types of legislative sessions. The first is Regular
Session which is created through a joint resolution at the start of every
session organizing the session after inauguration. The second is a Special Session, which is
created through an order from the Governor which calls the Legislature into
session and designates what bills the governor wants the Legislature to work
on. The third is an Extraordinary
Session, which is called for by the Legislature and is created through a joint
resolution, or through the Senate and Assembly Organization Committees, and
specifically identifies what legislation is to be acted upon. Both Special Sessions and Extraordinary
Sessions are limited to the bills identified either in the Governor’s order or
the legislative resolution or Organization Committee action.

In
December 2018, the Legislature called for an Extraordinary Session and as a
result passed three pieces of legislation eventually signed into law by
Governor Walker: 2017 Wisconsin Act 368, 2017 Wisconsin Act 369, and 2017 Wisconsin Act 370. In addition, the
Senate confirmed 82 appointments from Governor Walker. On January 20, 2019, the
League of Women Voters filed a complaint against the seven officers of the
Wisconsin Elections Commission and Governor Tony Evers asking the Dane County
Circuit Court to declare the three Acts unconstitutional and unenforceable
because they were done during a “constitutionally invalid session.” The League
also said that the 82 appointments were unconstitutional and unenforceable. The
Legislature filed a motion to intervene, a motion asking that any action the
circuit court takes be delayed (stay the injunction), and a motion to dismiss
the case. The Elections Commission also filed a motion to dismiss. In March
2019, the circuit court issued an order denying the Legislature’s motion to
dismiss, granting the temporary injunction, and denying the Legislature’s
motion to stay the injunction. Eventually, Judge Niess declared the Extraordinary
Session to be unconstitutional, vacated the appointments, and said the Acts
were unenforceable. The Legislature appealed and the League petitioned the Supreme
Court to take the case. After the circuit court ruled Governor Evers rescinded Governor
Walker’s appointments and named 82 new appointments.

The
Supreme Court granted the League’s petition to bypass the appeals court and
expedited the briefing schedule. Oral
arguments were heard on May 15, 2019. The Supreme Court now rules that Extraordinary
Sessions do not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the constitution
tells the Legislature to meet at times “provided by law,” and the Wisconsin
Statutes provide the law that lets the Legislature set its schedule. The
Supreme Court says, “The circuit court invaded the province of the Legislature
in declaring the extraordinary session unconstitutional, enjoining enforcement for
the three Acts, and vacating the 82 appointments. We vacate the circuit court’s
order and remand the matter to the circuit court with directions to dismiss the
League’s complaint.”

(Meeting of legislature. Section 11. [As amended Nov. 1881 and April 1968] The legislature
shall meet at the seat of government at such time as shall be provided by law,
unless convened by the governor in special session, and when so convened no
business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to accomplish the
special purposes for which it was convened. [1880 J.R. 9S, 1881 J.R. 7A, 1881 c. 262, vote Nov. 1881; 1965 J.R. 57,
1967 J.R. 48, vote April 1968])

Dallet
identifies that the question is the interpretation of “provided by law.” Dallet
says, ‘The majority agrees that “provided by law” means our statutes” and goes
on to explain “[T]he drafters meant statutory law when they used the phrase, provided
by law.’” Dallet explains that the only “such time” that is “provided by law”
for the Legislature is in Wis. Stat. § 13.02, which refers to “Regular sessions.”
Dallet goes on to identify the three subsections of the Wisconsin Statutes that
related to regular session scheduling and session organization. Dallet says, “March
22, 2018, was the final date the Legislature met pursuant to the work schedule
and, as was the practice at the end of each legislative session, bills that
were not passed in identical fashion by both houses expired.” Dallet references
two court cases, Thompson and Dammann in explaining the procedure
by which the Legislature can reconvene at a future date. Dallet says, “On March
22, 2018, the Legislature adjourned sine die, or ceased to exist, as there were
no future scheduled meetings of the regular session laid out in JR1. Therefore,
there was no authority for the majority of members of two committees to convene
a previously unscheduled meeting of the full Legislature in early December
2018.” Dallet says she dissents because she believes the session was unconstitutional.